Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive

awards

the previous month's awards weren't handed out, but i guess everyone's aware of that...FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

They were...? (well i received them) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

really? i haven't. bizarre. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must of missed you - I had problems with adits saving. Feel free to trout. Mdann52 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't either JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice progress!

As of 05:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC), the backlog is just under 1900, the 7+ -day old backlog is around 700, and the 14+-day-old backlog down under 200.

It was well over 2200 when we started. Working 300+ in 3 days would conservatively have us clearing the backlog by the 22nd. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's April 1 and we dropped the backlog into the 1400s and there is nothing older than March 2, so that's progress. At this rate it will take 2 more months to eliminate the backlog. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Have questions...

So...are we supposed to be manually adding the links to our Reviews to our individual Drive pages? I thought the 'Buddy' did that but apparently not? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you sign up, when the operator runs it, then the totals will update _semi automatically. Mdann52 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done several reviews and none of them are showing up on my individual page, but other reviewers have their reviews listed on their pages.... Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nvrmind....I *think* I get it now. I have to manually post every review I do on my individual Drive page and the 'Buddy' will do the tally on the main Drive page. As I said...I *think* I get it now. Shearonink (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I could have sworn AFCBuddy did everything automatically. I'll have to go back through my contributions to remind myself exactly what I've contributed. Hey ho. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ritchie, the only reason I figured that out was I went into other participants' Drive pages' edit histories and saw that they were the ones placing the diffs/links on their individual pages.... The instructions are on the Project page, but I am not very techish so examples of what is actually occurring always help me understand how to get things done around WP. Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think AFCBuddy needs to be run by its author, Excirial, first: "AFCBuddy will not post any data automatically - instead it generates it and relies on someone else (me) for actually posting them. I intend to keep them updated at least once every couple days, and preferably every day." I guess he will run it when he finds the time. Nimuaq (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to review a reviewer's review of another reviewer's review.

I was looking at Aaron Booth's contest entry page. Mr. Booth declined the draft of Finance Business Training (FBT). There is an evaluation next to the listing that says "--FAIL. Non notable, I beleive.--Pratyya". My understanding of the instructions is that PASS or FAIL is supposed to indicate that the second reviewer (Pratyya Ghosh in this case) checked the review (by Aaron Booth in this case) and is saying whether it was done properly (PASS) or improperly (FAIL). The comment suggests to me a misunderstanding of the PASS/FAIL criterion as applying to the draft rather than the review. —rybec 22:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I just looked at that Review. I think that Pratyya is saying that they disagree with the reason given for the rejection, Pratyya is saying that the reason should be "non-notable" instead of "written like an advertisement". He is not disagreeing that it should have been declined, he seems to be disagreeing with the reason. You might want to ask Pratyya on his talk page to make sure what his intent was. Shearonink (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your analysis may be right. I hadn't thought of that. I had left him User_talk:Pratyya_Ghosh#concern_about_your_contributions_to_the_AFC_backlog_elimination_drive a note a few minutes before posting here. Just now, I saw in an edit summary that he doesn't intend to go online for the next two weeks. —rybec 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I know when getting started on this type of Drive I can be fairly confused about how things run, but you might want to also take a look at the next section where I posted about what we're supposed to be doing with our Reviews of Reviews... Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In our 'Reviewing Reviews' I don't think we're supposed to

...necessarily take issue with the exact reason for an AfC draft being Declined. Unless an AfC Reviewer uses the Custom option, the AfC template does not allow for multiple reasons for the Decline and one reason is not in and of itself more valid than another. The Review of a Reviewer that I especially have in mind is Pratyya Ghosh's Review of Hal9000w's Review of Asylum Entertainment found here. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The script has a little window where we can type in comments. It puts them into an afc comment template. Whether it's desirable might depend on whether the draft has any possibility of being turned into a proper article. If there are several valid reasons for declining, but they can all be resolved, wouldn't it be better to mention them all so that they can be fixed with fewer revisions and fewer reviews? If there's no chance the draft could be made acceptable, better to save some typing I suppose. —rybec 08:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

you've got a point there, mate. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the "Comments" section, I use it all the time, but that wasn't the point of my post...I am only concerned with the secondary Reviews found on the Backlog Drive page under Reviewing Reviews (at the end of the Totals section.)

If an article is Declined and the reason is valid then the 'Reviewing Review' shouldn't necessarily give a Fail. Pratyya is apparently ill at the moment and I don't know when he will be returning to the Drive, but he gave at least two Fail Reviews that I consider somewhat problematic. I'm just thinking that all of us "Reviewing Reviews"-participants need some clarification as to what exactly the purpose of our secondary Reviews are. Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It is to ensure people don't just go through randomly accepting or declining hundreds of articles without looking at them. If you take issue with a review review, then feel free to submit your view - in the first drive, it was a "best of 3" approach, and I see no problem with that here. Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:AfC pending submissions by age

Seriously...take a look. TODAY?... there were over 740 AfC drafts submitted!!! Cheers!, Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone is going to get Trouted over this..... Mdann52 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just done a random check - this and this were both submitted on the 8th. This may be a larger issue for [[WT:AFC].... Mdann52 (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Yesterday, I Reviewed something supposedly from "today" and noticed that the date stamp was actually March 10th and then just now I Reviewed something supposedly from "today" and the submission was a "sandbox" but the date was actually February 25th. I mean, it's not really possible (is it?) to go from what looks like an average of 100-200 per day and then have a jump like that.

Oh, by the way, today's "today" is just as bad... Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Temporary tool for generating list of diffs

I just want to know if anyone is interested in an AFCBuddy-type of tool that can generate the list of reviews for a user until AFCBuddy returns. I have already written a basic tool for myself and I figured that I can update others' lists as well -if they want to. If you don't want to update the list of reviews yourself and want to see the list now, the tool can generate the list and I can update your list of reviews based on its output. This doesn't mean that AFCBuddy won't update the list for you when Excirial returns. Nimuaq (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds great! But before I sign on, I have to ask some non-techy questions - will your "AfCReview-Assistant" overwrite what we already have on our personal Drive pages? And will it tally up our Reviews of Reviews? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the pages of the previous (January) drive, AFCBuddy was copying the reviews of reviews under a new section "Checked reviews", so they both appear there with the comment and also at the list of reviews (see: [1], [2] and [3]). Nimuaq (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that looks good!...if your AFC-Assistant puts stuff into different sub-headings...have you run it on your own Drive page? My one question was about the secondary Reviews (where we give a Pass-Fail/Review to the primary AfC Review). But I can certainly total my own Pass-Fails up manually. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, I just checked your Drive page and I assume you did run your Assistant and am very discouraged about my total.. you have SO many! Shearonink (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why I wrote the tool, I figured that it will take less time to write a tool that generates the list than adding the pages one by one. This is what it looks like, but it has two serious limitations: it can't count deleted reviews (if you reviewed an article and marked it as copyright violation, it is probably deleted and it only remains visible to administrators) and it can't count reviews that are declined but later accepted by another reviewer (it can count the articles accepted by you though). In any case, this tool is not to replace AFCBuddy (it can't anyway for the limitations mentioned above), and AFCBuddy will wipe whatever this tool generated and will add a clean full list when it returns.Nimuaq (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Where do we sign up if we're interested? Shearonink (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Nimuaq/AFCTemp. Nimuaq (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is no longer available since AFCBuddy is currently active! Nimuaq (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is what happened to one of the AfCs that I reviewed...

I just found an AfC draft that I declined in the "0 days page...but it didn't appear to have been resubmitted. So, I tracked it down...and an IP has submitted the redirect...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:KateRivera/sandbox&action=history... Shearonink (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I just delete the redirect that's been left behind? They wrote more stuff and I gave them feedback on their talkpage/s, but they basically have no access to what they think is their only sandbox. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the redirect so that editor could access & edit their sandbox. Shearonink (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

First timer

Dear editors:

I just started reviewing a few days ago and didn't know about the backup drive until yesterday. I tried to add my reviews, so I hope I did it correctly. There are a number of manual reviews that I did on sandboxes before I clued in that I could move them, so I guess those don't count. I'm not sure if there's anything else I should have been doing besides listing the reviews on my subpage atWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Anne Delong, but now I have to go out to a family event, so I hope this was right. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:AfC backlog elimination drive

I hacked up Template:AfC backlog elimination drive to make it it possible to set up the countdowns of the start AND end of an upcoming drive and/or put up a note saying "The next backlog elimination drive has not been scheduled." When the next drive is announced, fill in "option 2" and enable it and disable "option 1" and "option 3." This will show the countdown to the start of the drive and remove the "not scheduled" message. About a day before the drive starts fill in and enable "option 3" to add the countdown for the end of the drive. Sometime after the drive starts, disable "option 2" to hide the "drive has already started" message. Some time after the the drive ends and the tallies are posted but before the next drive is announced, disable option 3 and enable option 1. This will turn off the "drive has ended" message and replace it with the "no drive is scheduled" message. Yes, this is a hack. There really needs to be a generic template that calls "countdown" twice and produces custom message(s) with up to 2 timers depending on whether the event has started, is in progress, or has ended. I'm too sleepy to write that tonight, so I'll leave it up to others or I may do it eventually. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

what? :D Mdann52 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Awards for this drive.

How come the awards don't seem to have been handed out yet? It's nearly half a month since the drive ended - according to the thread at the top of the page this has happened before. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I generally wait a few weeks to allow for any reviews to be completed. At the moment, I am trying to get the WP:SPER backlog down, so will sort the barnstars out next week. Mdann52 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okey-doke! :) So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The secondary reviews that said fail were supposed to get a third review. I got such a secondary review, but no one has done the third review. I also noticed that AFCbuddy removed some secondary reviews during its final run (I posted about it on Excirial's talk page). —rybec 04:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

TBH, it really doesn't matter - Unless the fail review took them over the line, I don't mind 1 or 2. Mdann52 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's into May, and the awards haven't been distributed yet. Perhaps the rules for acquiring an award ought to be adjusted so that only reviews completed by the end of the drive can qualify, as I imagine the ones for March shall have to be dismissed now. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

They were given out on 18 April by Mdann52. I'm not entirely sure I understand your comment, but I believe that only reviews done during March were counted. —rybec 01:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(In reply to Rybec) What I meant was that he said (up above) that he generally waits a few weeks for any reviews to be completed, and I was saying that if it was taking this long for that to occur then it might be better to only count reviews that were completed by the time the drive officially ended. Seeing as they were apparently distributed, however, that statement ought to be dismissed, and as its maker I would endorse its dismissal myself. I thought that the awards had not yet been given because I've not received one myself, and I reviewed 17 nominations during the drive; 15 is supposed to be the minimum required to earn something. I thought that I reviewed all of those nominations correctly, but even if I did err in more than two - I specify this count because that would bring my valid count below 15 - I would have thought I'd receive notification of this. So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)